I Said That? Yeah, I Said That!

Archive for the tag “Iowa caucus”

While Michelle Goldberg sympathizes with Muslim terrorists, Christianity scares the hell out her. So much so, she has taken to inventing an hysteria surrounding Michele Bachmann, Ron Paul, Christian Reconstructionism and Christian theocracy, and weaving them all into a single lustful tale of unimaginable things yet to come. Fear for your lives, so conjures Michelle.

Goldberg is terrified of both Presidential contenders, but Ron Paul more so, as Bachmann’s campaign begins its sunset and her supporters scramble to Paul. She begins with Michele Bachmann whom she states “frequently warns of the threat of a global caliphate”. Such unrepentant negativity toward Bachmann, despite the fact that it is Goldberg herself who never misses an opportunity in her articles to “frequently warn” us all of a Christian theocracy coming to America, including her current one. Bachmann is also critical of Ron Paul, but not for being too Christian, rather for being too soft on foreign policy; in particular, Paul’s anti-war stance and his opposition to any notions of conflict with Iran which Paul states is “American overreaction”. In one sentence Goldberg quotes from Bachmann her response to Paul saying:

I think I have never heard a more dangerous answer for American security than the one that we just heard from Ron Paul.”

In her very next sentence, however, (which is humanly possible for one with good lungs to read in the same breath) Goldberg strays wildly, unevenly, into a rambling non sequitur, strangely writing:

Bachmann built her career crusading against gay marriage, while Paul voted against a 2006 constitutional amendment limiting marriage to partners of the opposite sex. These are extremely different candidates.

Thus, Michelle Goldberg quantifies Bachmann’s reaction to Paul’s “dangerous answer to American security” by attributing to her what Goldberg emphasizes is Bachmann’s “crusading against gay marriage”. How in the hell can Goldberg go from writing about foreign policy in one sentence to writing about gay marriage in the very next, virtually in the same breath? What correlation is there between the two? Iran wants nuclear arms, and may already have developed one. Gays and lesbians want the right to get married. Which is more of a contentious, an explosive, issue? Unless, of course, Goldberg is eluding to both issues, once they become a reality, having the potential of reigning in Armageddon and the end of the world. Except, nuclear war can bring about the end of the world, and while gay marriage won’t bring about the end of Christian fundamentalism, it may soften its influence.

In Goldberg’s radical feminist mind, perhaps what she is really saying about Bachmann is “I [Michelle Goldberg] have never known a more dangerous person with insecurities towards homosexuality than I have known in Michele Bachmann”. In other words, Goldberg is insinuating that as “Bachmann has built a career crusading against gay marriage”, Ron Paul has “built a career” crusading against “American overreaction”, particularly in the Middle East. Ron Paul is less of a Christian apologist, even less of a Christian, than is Michele Bachmann, and therefore less of a perceived threat to Goldberg. Paul even supports defunding foreign aid to Israel. But the supporters of Ron Paul and Michele Bachmann, whom Goldberg describes as Christian Reconstructionists and premillennial dispensationalists, are:

one of the strangest coalitions in American political history, bringing together libertarian hipsters with those who want to subject the sexually impure to Taliban-style public stonings. (Stoning is Reconstructionists’ preferred method of execution because it is both biblical and fiscally responsible, rocks being, in North’s words, “cheap, plentiful, and convenient.”)

Goldberg loathes and despises Christianity, for one, because (and never mind the fact some millions of Christians support gay marriage) Christianity, and a sizable bulk of Christians remain opposed to gay marriage. Well, so does Islam, which is also opposed to homosexuality itself, and under Sharia law puts to death anyone caught engaged in homosexual activity, however slight. But it is Christianity, not Islam, which deeply affects Goldberg.

American law does not put to death anyone for being homosexual. But if Sharia law was ever granted legal status in America, it is possible that an American Muslim, having been “outed” could be executed – probably stoned – in America for being gay. It is also possible, under Sharia law, for a woman or girl accused of infidelity, even falsely, to be put to death. Have you heard of Soraya Manutchehri? But because Islam Hates Christianity, Goldberg tolerates Islam.

Goldberg has wrapped herself in heavy layers of, if you will, anti-Christian swaddling. Or would you prefer the chain of anti-Christianity she wears in life? Forged link by link of her own free will to include homosexuality, abortion, women’s rights, birth control for very young minors, gender equality and equal rights, illegal immigration and affirmative action. All of which Goldberg uses to denounce Christianity. Aside from abortion, which Christianity, and most Christians oppose, Goldberg has created tons of extra hate for a religion which cannot harm or even touch her under the American Constitution. No wonder why she comes to Ron Paul’s defense over the criticism of Michele Bachmann, a staunchly conservative Christian, although Goldberg would never support Ron Paul in anything other than when he seems to distance himself from Christian values and influence.

Some words of comfort by Ron Paul which Michelle Goldberg hearkens to:

My faith is a deeply private issue to me, and I don’t speak on it in great detail during my speeches because I want to avoid any appearance of exploiting it for political gain.”

Says Goldberg:

Paul doesn’t demagogue about a putative war on Christianity being waged by the Obama administration.

This is really the kind of Christian Goldberg admires – someone who keeps their faith to themselves, does not hold their religion and their religious values over another person’s head and can accept someone’s religious faith or non belief, their activism, religious or political, without ever interfering. Imagine telling Goldberg to shut the hell up and mind her own damn business, and to keep her opinions to herself. She would go ballistic, batty as a feminist and fly into a furious witch-like rage. But this is exactly what she demands of Christians.

There is indeed a “putative war” being waged by the Obama administration. A war against Americanism itself, which is, like it or not, deeply rooted in Christianity. The values and morals of conservatism, whether religious or secular, are being eroded and toppled by lawmakers and overruled by judges who deem them to be unconstitutional.

Goldberg freely expresses her hatred of Christianity because at one time in its history, long before the advent of America, it was violent and used violence very forcibly to hold on to its power and because she sees in today’s Christianity, among some several millions of Christians, that same zeal. But never mind that Islam is that way now, and has been for hundreds of years. The Islam of today, Goldberg empathizes and sympathizes with, while the Christianity of old, which cannot legally, constitutionally, function in America, she condemns. Goldberg worries a right wing President in the White House will usher in a new Christian Theocracy, but has no problem with the increase of Muslims in America and their push for Sharia law.

However, Goldberg is not so enraptured with Ron Paul that she would get in bed with him. She notes:

Nevertheless, Paul’s support among the country’s most committed theocrats is deep and longstanding, something that’s poorly understood among those who simply see him as a libertarian.

But so long as Paul hammers Bachmann on matters of religion, Goldberg will remain “friendly” towards him. And yet when interest and support in Bachmann’s campaign wanes, when those same Christians flock to Paul, Goldberg will quickly abandon her “friendliness” with Paul and excoriate and scourge him as she does Michele Bachmann and all Christians. Ron Paul, to Goldberg, is nothing more than useful tool, the same as with her infatuation with Islam – she uses both Paul and Islam to tweak and ridicule Christianity, never mind how dangerous are the radical elements within Islam she defends. Goldberg is a liberal, probably socialist, and like all in her camp they are under the false impression that if they can conquer Christianity, they can also conquer Islam and install socialism as the global model. But first they must conquer Christianity. They need like-minded politicians in congress and in the White House to assist them with passing a liberal and socialist agenda. A Republican win thwarts their efforts to push Christian influence aside. Hence, Goldberg’s constant attacks on Republicans, conservatives, the religious right and all of Christianity.

Michelle writes:

Should Paul win the Iowa caucuses, it will actually be a triumph for a fundamentalist faction that has until now been considered a fringe even on the Christian right.

If it is a “fringe” now, it will remain a “fringe” even with an Iowa win for Paul. Even if Paul somehow wins the nomination and the Presidency. What likelihood is there that several millions of people in a “fringe” swell into a hundred million converts in time for the 2012 election?

Michelle continues on for paragraphs – and paragraphs – in a schizophrenic and Christi-phobia rant beginning with:

To understand Paul’s religious-right support, it’s necessary to wade a bit into the theological weeds. Most American evangelicals are premillennial dispensationalists. They believe that God has a special plan for the nation of Israel, which will play a key role in the end of days and the return of Christ.

Thankfully, it is not necessary “to wade” any further into Goldberg’s anti-“theological weeds”. Her intent is clear and self evident, though her writing is incoherent, muddled and mired in an unrealistic fear of Christianity and exposes a nonsensical, deep-seeded loathing of Christians, Christian values and morals for very wrong and selfish reasons.

Goldberg actually helps Christianity, and thus conservatism, with her unfounded ignorance of it. The more people of little or no faith see Goldberg and others acting irrationally for their liberal cause, the more apparent it becomes just how unstable, unreliable, unrealistic liberalism is. The more Christians and conservatives see how intentional her misrepresentations of Christianity are, the stronger their resolve, and their agenda, becomes, and the more people abandon liberalism and liberalism’s empty promises for, if not Christianity, then most certainly secular conservatism.

Would Michelle Goldberg ever comprehend how greatly her insatiable Christi-phobia only weakens the cause of liberalism, or is that over her head?